Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Yes, we can do that @Kathy
Revised proposal for Q12: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/004039.html
I do suggest the revised proposal Q12 text
Well done Maxim & staff
New proposal for Q15: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/004040.html
I believe the agreement to publish was also to publish an overview of the arguments against this - it wasn't to publish it alone.
Yes, @Marie, I understood teh same.
Presumably there is a contractual carve-out to confidentiality for ausiting?
@Griffin but not for third-parties unless under confidentiality
gotcha, fair point
Agree Phil. What would it be for?
+1 Phil - also unclear on purpose of audit function.
So, looking for some undefined future purspose?
I would have to object to WG access.
So auditing for some undefined future purpose?
We can't retrospectively make a database open, when it was populated under the understanding that it would be confidential.
I think that if we are going to ask the community to opine on whether an audit should be conducted we need to provide more information about the purpose of the audit and what it will be seeking to determine or at least report upon. Thanks
That can't be done, I agree Claudio, by ICANN. If anyone has a problem with an actual TM being registered, your port of call is the TM office and a cancellation action. ICANN isn't a TM examiner.
will be back on the mobile
The let's ask commenters to opine on what the purpose of the audit should be as well as whether it should occur.
@Jason - respectfully disagree. If the database was populated w/ teh understanding the info was private, public commment does not overide that understanding.
Unless we make it clear in the public comment that underlying confidentiality must be protected & may make this proposal moot.
Cyntia. Sorry. Auto-typing for another Cynt(h)ia I have to mail rather often.
Thank you, Jason.
What are we putting to public comment?
Michael K's proposal.
No - not "just" his proposal - with the argumentation around it, Jason.
@All: It was agreed on the last call to put Michael Karanicolas’ proposal in the Initial Report
But do we have support to put Michael K's proposal out for public comment?
Seems that there is agreement to -not- put this new proposal out for public comment
@Julie - I believe there is that agreement over “Jason’s” proposal. But that should be understood as separate from the discussion of my prior proposal.
(Apologies if that didn’t need to be said, I only just joined)
@Michael: What is Jason’s proposal?
The one on screen - the staff suggested one focusing on an audit for the next working group
Even without this, I request Staff answer my question about whether it's Staff's position that AG violated an obligation by reporting on the top ten searched terms.
+1 Rebecca - I also would like to know the answer to that
@Rebecca: Staff will take that as an action, if it is possible to answer that question.
If we're going to allow this info to be available to working groups, then the participants should at the very least be required to formally agree to keep such info confidential. Is that even possible?
Also interested in Marie et al's position on this question--if even that much information should be prevented from becoming public.
@Cyntia: And it cannot be made available without the TM owners whose marks are in there being told & being given a chance to remove their TMs first, and we would have to define some form of mitigation response for them thereafter.
Marie, so should that have happened before the AG report?
Sorry @Rebecca; missed the above. The WG didn't get access to the database ; I assume that AG were given limited access under contractual confidentiality?
If you assume that, do you believe that AG violated its confidentiality obligations by creating a top ten list of searched terms?
That is, you've strongly indicated that there should be no disclosure other than through individual registration attempts and that this rule is the foundation of TM owners putting marks into the TMCH. If that is the rule, why didn't AG violate its obligations?
Terms searched by potential registrants = not the same as the TMs put into the CH.
So you would not consider transparency about terms that are searched to be a problem?
I admit I haven't read the contract with AG!
Are we talking about 'pushed' info or 'pulled' info? Where would the education $ come from?
But you are making claims about the confidentiality guaranteed by the TMCH; you don't need to read the contract with AG to know whether promises to TM owners have been breached though the source of the breach might depend on AG's contract.
I'm really not sure I'm following you, Rebecca. Apologies.
Martin Silva Valent
Thank you staff!
Pardon, @Martin - think this may have been lost. Are we talking about 'pushed' info or 'pulled' info? Where would the education $ come from?
If disclosing a list of top ten searched terms would not, in your opinion, violate confidentiality because search is not equivalent to the TMCH contents, then would any list of searched terms violate your understanding of the confidentiality promise?
Can we do that with Q8 too?
Pushed or pulled info?
Martin Silva Valent
I am not sure about what push pull means in this context
Martin Silva Valent
I can think in different interpretations
Martin Silva Valent
I mainly mean about the communication of the TMCH regarding their services and roles, weather they do that in a more passive or active manner, to do it in a full manner, equal manner, so all affected can improve their awareness and use of the system
Pushed info is an outgoing info campaign - expensive. Pulled info would be like the creatiion of infomational webpages that users could be referred to.
Annual review seems fine in absence of reason for additional action.
some years ago
"temperature of the room" was the phrase used
Good question, @Jason.
If we officially issued the survey today we could give a bit more than a week and then have staff provide a high level summation at the last WG meeting in Montreal
A survey has the virtue of yielding feedback from WG members who are not always on a call
@Rebecca: Affiliations can be captured in the survey
I have no personal objection to collecting ICANN constituency or SG, or "other" + self-characterization for those that don't fit in. Would prefer not to collect names as that is too much like a poll.
We can provide a big picture view of the affiliations of the survey takers, but not be able to do an analysis of how each survey question is answered by different constituency
People should just put their names on them
Can you edit the questions so that people put in an affiliation for each question?
Because a broad picture view won't disclose bloc voting
Thing is, we're not here representing our SGs/Cs - I'm not here representing the BC.
what’s the fear driving the idea that this has to be an anonymous survey?
What is bloc voting?
+1 John was just about to ask the same thing
Seems like it would be relatively simple to export data to a pivot table or accesss database
I'd have to go personal - no one is here "on behalf of" the BC (and I assume other SGs/Cs too?)
Marie, you were very clear that you were when we discussed database secrecy; I don't think anyone is here without a perspective
If this is a question of timing, do we need the survey responses for Montreal? I thought when discussed last week it was for us to pick up after Montreal
Oh you can call me me, Rebecca, or my employer - but to say I'm here "for" the BC just isn't true!
on each question
I don’t believe Google Form can impose character limit, we will need to check
I can address Claudio’s point
Documents, Providers, and Practitioners Sub Teams
Sub Team proposals are separate and not covered in this survey
If it was a sub team proposal then it would be captured there
New hand for comment after others have spoken
Due to the time constrains, if we are collecting comments for each survey question, staff can do a compilation of the comments but we won’t have time to do summary, categorization, or other kind of analysis of these comments
Kathy is very quiet here
We can’t do affiliation by question, just overall
@Julie - but we can do names on each question, Ariel said.
@Ariel - hopefully there would be few enough comments as to not be burdensome.
Martin Silva Valent
That should be enough to have some feeling on the diversity of the supports
Still not in any way representing the BC here, though.
Names overall, not by question
A high level data report is sufficient for Montreal. detailed discussion based on survey information would occur after ICANN 66.
It also was the staff’s perspective that capturing names suggests that this is a poll, not a survey. So that is why staff designed it without names.
Why MUST names be attributed to answers?
@Cythia: If names overall are captured they can’t be attributed to answers
Only if they were captured for each question, which the survey is not designed to do
Just see no reason why we MUST attribute names to every answer.
I have to say I share Michael's concerns; with an undefined purpose/level of support required for further discussion, we'll be fighting both about the proposals and about the level of support for the proposals instead of just the former
We do need to know if there is agreement for names to be made public (staff is collecting names overall to make sure someone is a WG member) but not releasing them unless the WG agrees.
but then again, we will probably fight about both regardless, so my concerns may not make a difference
So sad that before we've even had teh survey, it is assumed that members will be fighting over the results.
Sad, yes. Unwarranted, I doubt it.
Can we understand the reasons for these name and affiliation concerns? And how those people intend to use this data?
Legitimate purpose building block, Greg? ;-)
Truly? Why not just have the survey to gauge the level of approval/disapprovalof each item then use the info only as a guide to support? Isn't it better to have the info than not?
I’ve listened to the last half hour and I question the need for the names and affiliations based on what I’ve heard.
Greg - it’s so we can get a sense of the breadth of cross-community support, as opposed to just a numbers game
So. If opposition is concentrated in a single constituency - I think that’s relevant
It need to go today to be discussed in Montreal
bye all, have to drop the call
Could Staff kindly publish the dates/times of our meetings in Montreal.
show of hands. who wants a temp of the room survey?
Susan - that’s not how this works!
Is consensus irrelevant now?
Saturday, 02 November 15:15-16:45 session 1; Saturday, 02 November 17:00-18:30 session 2; Sunday, 03 November 17:00-18:30 session 3
@Michael - that's exactly opposite of the purpose of the survey. It's only to see if there are outliers that can be eliminated.
That makes a lot of assumptions about what one’s affiliation means.
Please note our meetings are very early in ICANN66- Saturday and Sunday!
Assumptions which are borne out by experience, unfortunately.
Keep in mind that 6 people have already taken the survey
we're not doing a consensus call here Michael, we're trying to determine whether we go forward or not and after 30 mins of this the co chairs appear to be unclear of their path forward
Let's add a attribution field -- not for speaking for the SG or C, but by way of references
Agreed @Phil! This is being complicated. It's NOT a final determination just a very broad overview.
We're simply seeing if we can eliminate outliers.
Absolute numbers are not necessarily indicative of broad support/rejection that's why there whould be names on them
no it shoudl ne names
How will co-chairs use this data? Or give it weight?
i.e., the name and affiliation data